It is amazing that the Andean plane crashed Oct13, 1972, and the Canadian plane crashed Dec8. 1972. The story is very unlike the previous post about it. Only the pilot survived by eating the dead, while with the soccer team more survived.In googling it brought up the 1800s Donner Party, and this guy:http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... index.html

"Israel Swan he was a rugged trapping manUntil Alfred Packer cooked him in an iron frying panAnd few was tougher than Shannon Wilson BellTough as salted leather; Packer salted this man wellThen there was Frank Miller, then there was George NoonPacker et Frank with a fork and he et George with a spoonAnd James Humphrey was the last one from UtahAnd Packer's ax and mouth was the last thing Humphrey sawThere was six men started out with Packer as their guideAnd Packer he came back with the other five insidePacker couldn't lead a party and he couldn't hunt no meatBut give him an ax and a skillet and packer he could eat

Colorado folks wanted to give his neck a stretchThey gather at Lake City and said let us hang the wretchMelville shook his gavel at Packer's matted headAnd said "Hang him by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead"But Packer pled his case and the Supreme Court set him freeO is it a crime for a man to eat when he is hungaryHe was a cannibal and a murderer and a son of a wretched gunBut given an ax and an appetite, you might do what Packer doneThere was six men started out with Packer as their guideAnd Packer he came back with the other five insidePacker couldn't lead a party and he couldn't hunt no meatBut give him an ax and a skillet and packer he could eat"......

I remember reading the donner party story in my teens. Survival usually comes to those who are most willing to survive at all costs but it still must have been a haunting experience for a civilized person to live with for the rest of their lives.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..

Except I did not agree with the amoral, or lack of moral concern, with cannabalism, but pointed out there was an offsetting moral concern. If eating of humans is amoral there is no moral issue, but if it is acceptable in certain cases the moral opposition is mitigated and not removed. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, so a moral issue cannot be made into an amoral issue because of an offsetting situation. The moral aspect will always remain.

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

"might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral."

You do realize you are using circular logic & a two edged sword at the same time, I hope.

I am using neither. You cannot claim circumstances make a moral issue an amoral issue. Circumsatnces may cause the moral issue to be ignored, but it cannot remove it as the moral component was already attached. Society HAS made the moral decision on eating so it cannot be an amoral issue ... period. The moral issue can be overcome, but it is still a moral issue being overcome not removed.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Quote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..[/quote]

Quote:

Except I did not agree with the amoral, or lack of moral concern, with cannabalism, but pointed out there was an offsetting moral concern. If eating of humans is amoral there is no moral issue, but if it is acceptable in certain cases the moral opposition is mitigated and not removed. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, so a moral issue cannot be made into an amoral issue because of an offsetting situation. The moral aspect will always remain.

Quote:

"might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral."

You do realize you are using circular logic & a two edged sword at the same time, I hope.[/quote]

Quote:

I am using neither. You cannot claim circumstances make a moral issue an amoral issue. Circumsatnces may cause the moral issue to be ignored, but it cannot remove it as the moral component was already attached. Society HAS made the moral decision on eating so it cannot be an amoral issue ... period. The moral issue can be overcome, but it is still a moral issue being overcome not removed.

So say you but realistically society accepted the fact that the Andes and the Donner people readjusted our sense of survival and we all looked at the choice as amoral or the courts would have charged the cannabals and made those charges stick.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Quote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..

Quote:

Except I did not agree with the amoral, or lack of moral concern, with cannabalism, but pointed out there was an offsetting moral concern. If eating of humans is amoral there is no moral issue, but if it is acceptable in certain cases the moral opposition is mitigated and not removed. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, so a moral issue cannot be made into an amoral issue because of an offsetting situation. The moral aspect will always remain.

Quote:

"might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral."

You do realize you are using circular logic & a two edged sword at the same time, I hope.[/quote]

Quote:

I am using neither. You cannot claim circumstances make a moral issue an amoral issue. Circumsatnces may cause the moral issue to be ignored, but it cannot remove it as the moral component was already attached. Society HAS made the moral decision on eating so it cannot be an amoral issue ... period. The moral issue can be overcome, but it is still a moral issue being overcome not removed.

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

So say you but realistically society accepted the fact that the Andes and the Donner people readjusted our sense of survival and we all looked at the choice as amoral or the courts would have charged the cannabals and made those charges stick.

Yes, society accepted the moral impact, but that does not make the action of eating people amoral. If there were no mitigating factor there would be no such acceptance. If it were amoral it would not even be discussed. That means eating people is a moral situation ... period. You have referenced the moral considerations which have had to be overcome in order for people to accept the actions. Also criminal charges do not make an action moral or immoral, but only make it legal or illegal. The two are different.

Neither choice was amoral as each has a clear modern moral component. If there was no moral component the boy would not have had a problem eating in the same fashion as the nurse. The circumstances alone allowed the moral objection to be overcome ... at least for the nurse. The morals of the modern society oppose cannibalism, just as they oppose murder or theft, which are also amoral actions in nature.

Note that if there were no moral component the "abhorrent amoral choice" would not be called "abhorrent" would it?

Quote:

yes they would because human ethics abhore cannalbalism from the comfort of their armchairs. We chose to look upon the eating of the dead passengers as amoral because the nurse sustained her life.

Quote:

The eating of human flesh is morally wrong according to our society, but in this case the greater moral wrong of suicide by starvation mitigated it .... at least it did in the case of the nurse.

Nice job of agreeing with what I already noted since in the nurse's case she felt her life choice had become amoral and over -ruled the immorality and as in the case of the Andes survivor humanity was both replused and thankful that there were actually survivors no matter the loss of ethics and moral choices..

Quote:

Except I did not agree with the amoral, or lack of moral concern, with cannabalism, but pointed out there was an offsetting moral concern. If eating of humans is amoral there is no moral issue, but if it is acceptable in certain cases the moral opposition is mitigated and not removed. The two definitions are mutually exclusive, so a moral issue cannot be made into an amoral issue because of an offsetting situation. The moral aspect will always remain.

Quote:

"might point out the clarification that human eating is not quite amoral as there is a moral opposition to eating other humans ........ not to mention the other various moral restrictions placed by religions. The natural concept eating of anything, including siblings or offspring, would be amoral."

You do realize you are using circular logic & a two edged sword at the same time, I hope.

Quote:

I am using neither. You cannot claim circumstances make a moral issue an amoral issue. Circumsatnces may cause the moral issue to be ignored, but it cannot remove it as the moral component was already attached. Society HAS made the moral decision on eating so it cannot be an amoral issue ... period. The moral issue can be overcome, but it is still a moral issue being overcome not removed.

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:

So say you but realistically society accepted the fact that the Andes and the Donner people readjusted our sense of survival and we all looked at the choice as amoral or the courts would have charged the cannabals and made those charges stick.

Yes, society accepted the moral impact, but that does not make the action of eating people amoral. If there were no mitigating factor there would be no such acceptance. If it were amoral it would not even be discussed. That means eating people is a moral situation ... period. You have referenced the moral considerations which have had to be overcome in order for people to accept the actions. Also criminal charges do not make an action moral or immoral, but only make it legal or illegal. The two are different.

Yes, society accepted the moral impact, but that does not make the action of eating people amoral. If there were no mitigating factor there would be no such acceptance. If it were amoral it would not even be discussed. That means eating people is a moral situation ... period. You have referenced the moral considerations which have had to be overcome in order for people to accept the actions. Also criminal charges do not make an action moral or immoral, but only make it legal or illegal. The two are different.

Wayne you can play with the sematics all night long but it doesn't change the fact that even the courts look upon this issue as an amoral life saving choice under certain circumstances .

It is not semantics on my part. You are the one misusing the definition of amoral and trying to connect immoral as being illegal. You have trashed your own position by your own words. Eating is not amoral as much as you wish to try to make the claim with anecdotal evidence. The Kosher diet restrictions disproves that, much less the other religious groups restriction on diet. The general moral view of eating human flesh also disproves that, and your attempt to show that is not the case by the exceptional anecdotal cases does the opposite.

Amoral means without moral connection, not that the moral opposition is excepted due to circumstances. Amoral does not mean legal or illegal either.

The OTHER circumstances would not be acceptable? That means there is a moral aspect and in those certain circumstances the moral issues may be compaired and the lesser violation chosen.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Can morality exist in an objective state and not just a subjective one. If it can then what percentage can be fixed ( in the objective state) and at what percentage can be attributed to the discretion of the sentient evaluating the morals of a given situation in a subjective state?I would suggest the percentages would be variable according to the given situation or circumstance albeit seemingly obvious!!! Could they overlap and corrupt the percentage rule in this particular case?

Referring to the subjective state how individual would the moral assessment be? In that I mean would they be a collective result as Nietzsche wrote in the Gay Science that morality is a herd instinct in the individual?

Would a world without humans be an amoral one or would the 'lesser sentients' keep the moral and immoral concepts alive even though the present attitude is one that morals are a human behaviour or characteristic?

Last edited by mothy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

There is no objective moral code because only humans have created morals for use in their civilizations to our knowledge. If morals were created in nature there would be an objective basis, but that is not the case. Thus, each civilization and culture within the civilizations create their own moral code to use for themselves.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

There is no objective moral code because only humans have created morals for use in their civilizations to our knowledge. If morals were created in nature there would be an objective basis, but that is not the case. Thus, each civilization and culture within the civilizations create their own moral code to use for themselves.

That is your belief. You cannot state so confidently that there is no objective moral code. How would you prove it?

Objective morality would suggest there is absolute right and wrong and that could imply a God.

Last Friday, I was returning home work, when two large beautiful foxes darted out from a nearby alley and into the road infront of an oncomming car. It was very apparent, even from a half meter distance that this car had hit one of the foxes, therefore there is no way the driver could not have been aware of the travasty he/she had just caused. However, rather than stopping to check on him, the driver continued on reguardless. When I went to examine the fox, whom I later named Tobias, his spine had been snapped, and he lay dead on impact. Distraught by this, I called the RSPCA hoping to bring the driver to some kind of justice, only to be told that, although they could act in the cases of certain wildlife, the law does not protect him because he was a fox!Tobias was a strong, healthy, beautiful animal. His death was cruel and unjust. It is wrong that one species is valued more than another. Every life is precious, and we have no right to play god and decide which belongs and which does not. For these reasons I want to change this law, so that foxes are given the same rights and justice as other animals under this protective umbrella. I would really appriciate your advice on how I can do this in a peaceful and constructive manner.Please help me get justice for Tobias.

I remember a few years ago I was in the country for some fresh air when I came across a lamb perhaps 4 or 5 days old lying down in a field breathing erratically, obviously something wrong. I found the appropriate farmhouse and informed the farmer. Two days later I decided to go back and there was the lamb in the same place in still the same obvious distressed state. I phoned the R.S.P.C.A The royal society for the protection of animals who didn't want to know because it wasn't a domestic pet like a cat or a dog or gerbil. I lost total faith in them at that point. It's almost like we have multiple personality disorder when it comes to animals. Pet that, cage that, eat that, stick that in a small tank, a hutch with no real space will do for the bunny,

Man, we really are abusers of those who we should with morals look after.

There is no objective moral code because only humans have created morals for use in their civilizations to our knowledge. If morals were created in nature there would be an objective basis, but that is not the case. Thus, each civilization and culture within the civilizations create their own moral code to use for themselves.

That is your belief. You cannot state so confidently that there is no objective moral code. How would you prove it?

Easy, all that is needed to disprove it is to show me an objective moral code in nature. If there cannot be one found the theory is valid.

Quote:

Objective morality would suggest there is absolute right and wrong and that could imply a God.

Yes, it could.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

There is no objective moral code because only humans have created morals for use in their civilizations to our knowledge. If morals were created in nature there would be an objective basis, but that is not the case.

There is no objective moral code because only humans have created morals for use in their civilizations to our knowledge. If morals were created in nature there would be an objective basis, but that is not the case.